The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The possibility of merging can continue to be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 12:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Straight man cancer[edit]

Straight man cancer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This nomination is wholly on the behalf of 2601:282:B01:A696:A044:6078:BF4E:5A41, who can't start AfDs due to being unregistered. Their rationale on the talk page was The article is using limited sourcing, that does not show long-term notability, and therefore is not in compliance with WP:NOTNEO. This seems appropriate for urbandictionary, not here. Their rationale on the previous PROD (which was contested) was Article has clear issues with reliable sourcing, and non-encyclopedic commentary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and especially not Urban Dictionary 2.0..

I personally don't have an opinion; I'm completely neutral atm as to whether this page should be deleted or not. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 12:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Hegemonic masculinity. zh:直男癌 redirects to their version of toxic masculinity. This can be covered there to provide international examples of this topic. feminist (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's enough sustained coverage on there to pass GNG. I think if we look at a few Chinese sources we can definitely shore up the article to be even stronger. Disagree with the IP's rationale that this is more worthy of an "urban dictionary entry", since this phrase has received plenty of coverage in English speaking sources, which says a lot about the phrase's notability. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply after opinion invoked: The existence or occurrence of reporting on any subject/phenomenon/fad/phrase/place/etc does not automatically create (WP:NOTNEWS) long-lasting notability (otherwise referred to as, the standard by which most all article here are allowed to exist and be maintained). The term has gotten coverage in less than 15 sources and an even smaller percentage of those are reliable sources at all, and what's left of those is mired by at least two sources that seem to be interviewing the person who coined the term (making them primary and therefore null in assisting to determine notability here, as the news articles were not specifically about the term beyond a "passing mention"). I am not saying the term is not used at all (which is a misrepresentation of my previous articulation on this), only that it has yet to be used enough to be considered notable... and even if it had been, there's a rather strong (over 15 year long) precedent already set by the redirect for male chauvinist pig (which has a much higher rate of reporting, and has shown clear lasting notability), which would almost surely be seen as a WP:POVFORK if done as an article. But, I would be highly open to redirecting this article to the same target as that, with the important (even if albeit entirely limited in depth) data from the NYT, Guardian, BBC and other outlets on this culture specific (and even to a large degree Weibo.com-centric) phrase merged to ensure nothing that should be kept ends up gone. 2601:282:B01:A696:8040:10F1:A6A1:B28F (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mentioned that this seems to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage which means WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply. I don't see how this is a POV fork at all, and just because there's no article on a similar English saying doesn't mean that this topic doesn't pass GNG. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hegemonic masculinity, which is on the same topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with redirecting. Non-western conceptions of hegemonic masculinity are definitely worthy of discussion, and redirecting is a disservice to the comprehensiveness of our encyclopedia and worsens its western bias. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 07:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Hegemonic Masculinity A redirect alone won't capture this specific international example, but agree it serves best as part of the broader topic. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Question @Simonm223: @Feminist: I'm a little confused on the merge rationale. Why merge and not keep? The article appears to pass GNG to me and there's a substantial amount of coverage of this saying in English sources. My Chinese is terrible so I'm not sure I should be looking for sources, but are we sure there's not even more sourcing out there in Chinese? – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 07:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's definitely notable; but I'm uncertain it's due its own article. As Feminist pointed out, the Chinese Wikipedia article currently does redirect to their version of Hegemonic Masculinity, and while WP:OSE applies, it does demonstrate that this is an appropriate solution here. I don't want to see the information deleted outright. But I feel it is better suited as an example of a broader phenomenon than as a stand-alone article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we necessarily need to use Chinese Wikipedia as precedent. We have no idea why it's currently a redirect. Did it get redirected due to an AFD? If so, we should probably examine that AFD to see if the closing corresponds with our AFD standards. Or is it because an editor hasn't had the time to write up a full article on the phenomenon yet? I'll note that the Chinese article on hegemonic masculinity doesn't mention "straight man cancer" at all, so there's already an absence of content that isn't true for English Wikipedia. Regardless of the article's status on Chinese Wikipedia, it's my opinion that, even considering English only sources, this topic passes WP:GNG. And at the risk of WP:MUSTBESOURCES, I'm sure there must be a few Chinese sources on this phenomenon as well. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've cleaned up the refs which include The Wall Street Journal China, The Telegraph and Bloomberg Businessweek, since the argument in the OP is RS then I think there is enough. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable neologism — and a non-English one to boot! Carrite (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Redirection to hegemonic masculinity might be a reasonable outcome. Carrite (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Either Merge to Hegemonic masculinity, or rename as Misogyny in China. This is English Wikipedia, not Chinglish Wiktionary. Just because these 2-year-old Internet neologisms got coverage in Western media doesn't mean they are any more notable than 2000-year-old expressions in Chinese. Timmyshin (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redirect to Hegemonic masculinity is not a viable option because, as nom stated, WP isn't urban dictionary 2.0, it's an encyclopedia. There are no terms on here that urban dictionary specifically is designed to cover. While WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD could apply here, they definitely shouldn't. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep References suffice, and the hegemonic masculinity article is much longer and hence not suited to merging. WP:NOTADICTIONARY doesn't apply as this article explains a cultural concept rather than merely defining a term. Λυδαcιτγ 08:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.